qualifying or eliminations style robots

[nuggetsyl]

I am wondering what kind of robots we will see this season. Robots built to qualify or play the elims. They are 2 very different robots IMO. Yes you will have the few, the proud, the 254's (poofs), but that is not what 99.99% of FIRST can do.

[tindleroot]

I think most teams that play qualifiers well can do well during elims, but those teams will require enough quality scouting to spot the low-seeded team that stacks a recycling bin very well in order to win elims. The robots that stack bins but not totes will be almost purely elimination robots, whereas stackers will show more through qualifiers.

[xXhunter47Xx]

IMO, I don't think you can get to elims if your robot can't play to qualify.
If you have robot that can pick up TOTES and CONTAINERS in any orientation and have them stack stably, you will be able to compliment any robot.

[John Retkowski]

Elims are the same game as qualifiers. The only thing removed is coop points.

That being said it doesn't really come down to a change in robots. It comes down to a change in strategy.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

I think most teams that play qualifiers well can do well during elims, but those teams will require enough quality scouting to spot the low-seeded team that stacks a recycling bin very well in order to win elims.

Teams always need high quality scouting if they are looking to win.

[nuggetsyl]

Originally Posted by John Retkowski

Elims are the same game as qualifiers. The only thing removed is coop points.

That being said it doesn't really come down to a change in robots. It comes down to a change in strategy.

I disagree but I guess we will find out.

[TylerS]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

I disagree but I guess we will find out.

Can you be more specific as to what you think some hard differences we will see between good qualification and good elimination robots?

[nuggetsyl]

Originally Posted by TylerS

Can you be more specific as to what you think some hard differences we will see between good qualification and good elimination robots?

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

[TylerS]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

I agree that auto will make or break an elimination alliance, especially at higher levels of competition. Playing nice with your own alliance during those first few seconds are of the utmost importance.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

IMO, I don't think you can get to elims if your robot can't play to qualify.
If you have robot that can pick up TOTES and CONTAINERS in any orientation and have them stack stably, you will be able to compliment any robot.

If you have a robot able to do these things you will be picking robots that compliment you

[John Retkowski]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

Ah that makes sense. I had discounted auto. In eliminations, especially as events get more competitive, alliances auto will definitely be a deciding factor.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

I disagree but I guess we will find out.

I think this brings up something that's a pretty common debate on my team.

As a team plays matches through an event, or rather really conducts 'scoring trials' with two other partners, they are in competition not with the opposing alliance, but with every other team at the event. Therefore, there is not much motivation to stop your opponent from scoring. Your own actions in a single match won't affect your opponent's ranking much, and as such couldn't boost your own ranking very much. The result of this competition is a final ranking, which is used to be seeded.

Into playoffs, individual teams don't matter anymore, and there are now only 8 competitors in the competition, as apposed to 37. Now you have the ability to greatly effect 1/7 of the competitors (all matches of 1/7 of the alliances) in the quarters, 1/3 in the semis, or 100% in the finals. This is apposed to barely effecting all the competitors in the quals, which would be hard to draw a direct improvement in ranking from.

The question is, "Which one should we design for?" Its a tough one, but this has generally been my reasoning: It's best to control your own destiny, because if not, you're forced to hope that others will control it well for you. And in a competition, that's a very hard decision to justify. As such, you want to rank well to be an alliance captain, and that means you have to perform will in the quals, which means designing for the quals.

Not to mention that if you seed very well, your own team shouldn't do to shabby in the playoffs either. At that point its up to good scouting for who wins, and if you're relying on other teams who rank well to do good scouting in order to pick you, well, I can assure you of one thing: Many teams do not do good scouting.

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

*touches nose and points*

[tStano]

I think that robots designed for quals might be able to stack 3 or 4 totes very quickly and be very successful. However, in eliminations, it might be necessary to make higher stacks to conserve containers. This could be done slower and still be valuable.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, very much so. I don't think some other folks get it yet. Hm.

[ttedrow]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Stacking robots and RB placers are what they are. But IMO what people do in Auto will be what wins this years game. From what I am reading most teams do not understand the math of the game. The difference in qualifying or eliminations style robots will be auto and that will have to be built into the design. Qualifying will focus on yellow bins and elimination will not.

I have to disagree. A stacked tote set with three robots in auto zone in only worth 24 points and will be very difficult to do. Especially without knocking over the RCs.
Control and stacking the RCs will make the difference for the consistently high scoring teams.